Introduction: Laboratory turnaround time is defined as the time between the receipt of a sample in the laboratory and when the report is ready for collection/dispatch. It is a critical component of the quality assurance of a laboratory and has been identified as a key performance indicator of laboratory performance. This study is aimed at evaluating the turnround time in the histopathology unit of our center and comparing the findings with that of similar studies. Methodology: This was a prospective descriptive study of the first 500 consecutive samples of surgical biopsies submitted for analyses at the Histopathology Department of the Jos University Teaching Hospital. The samples were tracked from the reception desk, where they are submitted to the dispatch point where the results are collected by clients. The grossing time (T1), processing time (T2), reporting time (T3), and the transcription time (T4) were recorded for each sample. The data obtained were analyzed using SPSS software and presented as simple frequencies and percentages. Results: The mean laboratory turnaround time was 7.5 + 9.7 days with a range of 3–18 days. As much as 20.8% of reports were ready for dispatch by day 3 and 100% by day 18. Overall, the grossing time (T1), processing time (T2), reporting time (T3), and transcription (T4) time consumed 17.5%, 35.5%, 27.7%, and 19.3% of the total time spent, respectively. Conclusion: We recommend the development of practicable targets for the histopathology laboratories as regards timeliness. This should be regularly evaluated to ensure compliance and improvement of service quality in this regard.

Background: Antenatal healthcare providers’ (AHPs) knowledge about hyperglycaemia in pregnancy (HIP) and its screening best practices affect the management of affected pregnant women. We assessed the knowledge of HIP and associated factors amongst first line AHPs. Methods: This descriptive cross-sectional study involved 188 Doctors, Nurses and Community Health providers directly involved in providing antenatal care at all levels of health care in Jos, Plateau State, Nigeria, selected through total sampling technique. Result: A total of 103 AHPs (54.8%) were females. The mean knowledge score (SD) score was 17.0+/-5.5 (out of 30). Only 93 (49.5%) had a good knowledge of HIP (Knowledge score ≥18). Only 88 (46.8%) could correctly identify 75g OGTT or 100g OGTT as diagnostic tests for GDM. Gender, category of hospital, level of care of the institution and job designation were significantly associated with knowledge of HIP after bivariate analysis (p < 0.05). After multivariate analysis using logistic regression analysis, only the category of institution and job designation were independently associated with knowledge of HIP. Conclusion: The general level of knowledge of HIP among AHPs is average but awareness of testing and management guidelines is very poor hence the need for regular updates for health professionals. Keywords: Hyperglycaemia in Pregnancy; gestational diabetes mellitus; knowledge of GDM; guidelines for GDM.

Background: Postoperative nausea and vomiting have remained significant causes of morbidity in patients undergoing general anaesthesia for gynaecological laparoscopic procedures. Objectives: This study compared the severity of postoperative nausea and vomiting following gynaecological laparoscopic procedures after prophylaxis with metoclopramide and ondansetron. Methods: Sixty-six consenting patients aged 18-55 years undergoing day case gynaecological laparoscopic procedures were recruited and randomly allocated into two groups with each receiving either intravenous ondansetron 4mg or intravenous metoclopramide 10mg prior to induction of anaesthesia. The severity of nausea and vomiting were then assessed over a period of 4 hours before discharge. Results: Nausea was mild in 24.2% and 6.1% of patients that received metoclopramide and ondansetron respectively, and severe in 9.1% of patients in both groups. In the metoclopramide group, 6.1% experienced 1 bout of vomiting compared to 3% in the ondansetron group. 3% had 2 bouts of vomiting in the metoclopramide, none in the ondansetron group had up to 2 bouts of vomit. Conclusion: Ondansetron was more effective in the prevention of the mild form of nausea, the two study drugs are similarly effective for the prevention of vomiting.